Case 3305946/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305946/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms S Boot, Mr R Baber
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination arising from his work for TC Facilities Management Ltd cleaning at Yodel's Borehamwood site. The second respondent conceded that a fair procedure was not followed, and the tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
For remedy, the tribunal accepted 11 years and one month of service and a weekly pay figure of £237.82. It awarded a basic award of £3,805.12 and assessed the compensatory award by reference to a 16-week loss period, later applying a 25% Polkey reduction because there was a chance the claimant would have been dismissed fairly in any event. The tribunal made no reduction to the basic award for conduct and no further reduction for contributory conduct, producing a total award of £6,568.08.
The race discrimination complaint was found to be out of time. The tribunal held that the last act in the alleged series was a failed audit on 31 January 2022, so the claim presented on 25 May 2022 was outside the three-month time limit even after allowing for early conciliation. It refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis, noting that the claimant had not explained the delay in evidence, that the grievance process had concluded by 5 April 2022 at the latest, and that he had already identified discrimination in an internal grievance in January 2022.
In any event, the tribunal dismissed the race claim on the merits. It accepted that the audit process involved joint site inspections, sign-off by Brendan, and that the scoring reflected observed cleaning standards. It found the claimant had not shown facts from which collusion could be inferred, accepted evidence that Shamiza Akbar did not know who had cleaned which area unless she observed it, and held that the claimant had not proved the warehouse comparator should also have failed in the way he alleged. The tribunal therefore concluded that there was no less favourable treatment because of race.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The second respondent conceded that a fair procedure was not followed. The tribunal found dismissal unfair, applied a 25% Polkey chance of fair dismissal in any event, and made no reduction for contributory conduct or conduct affecting the basic award. | Upheld | — | £6,568 |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the complaint was presented out of time, refused a just and equitable extension, and in any event found no facts from which it could conclude that the claimant was treated less favourably because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,568
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,805
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,763
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Bexley Community Centre v Robertson
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Igen v Wong
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.